Debt crisis? Truth is, there isn't one    

Date
    August 17, 2013
    The Age.

The expression making a mountain out of a molehill could have been invented for the debate about government debt in Australia.      :-?

    So the basic fact is this: 

We hear debt is out of control and future generations will be burdened with paying it off. Rubbish.      :)

When the secretaries of Treasury and the Department of Finance sign off on the independent Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) as reflecting their officers' best professional judgment on the budget, one thing they do is model projections for the next 10 years. The results are in startling contrast to debt alarmism.


Pages 60 and 61 of the PEFO released this week illustrate two scenarios in the absence of policy changes. One accepts the 2013-14 budget assumptions by limiting real growth in payments to 2 per cent a year (which history suggests is a heroic assumption) and capping tax revenue at 23.7 per cent of gross domestic product (lower than all but one year of the period 2000-07). The other no-policy-change scenario allows rises in spending with demand and in taxes with growth in profits and incomes.

What happens?

In the first scenario, the underlying cash surplus grows rapidly beyond the forward estimates. ''Net debt is projected to return to zero in 2023-24.'' In the second scenario - in which ''spending grows in line with the demand for existing functions and if the taxation system is unchanged'' - payments growth rises to an average of 3.5 per cent a year and the tax take hits 25.5 per cent of GDP (exceeding the records of 2004-06). The result? ''Net debt would be slightly above zero in 2023-24.''

Such projections cannot be exact, but are more reliable than much of the public commentary on debt. One chart doing the rounds shows the proportion of debt accumulated by Australia from 2011 to 2014 as greater than for all OECD nations but Spain and Slovenia. Writing in The Australian Financial Review, former Howard government minister Alexander Downer cited this as proof the Rudd government has lost control of debt.

What does the table really show? And how does Australia's debt truly compare?

The first question to ask about any percentage change is this: what was the starting point? The chart purporting to show the ''facts'' on debt is a classic example of why this matters.

Every other country on the chart has a debt that, relative to the size of their economies, is much bigger than Australia's. The apparently rapid growth in Australian debt is a result of its low starting point.

As a simple illustration, which would you prefer: a 100 per cent increase in a $1 debt, or a 10 per cent increase in a $100 debt? The first will cost you $1, the second $10. No contest.

Or consider two debtors. The figures are drawn from the OECD Outlook No. 93, published in June. One, let's call her Ms Australia, has gross debts equal to 33.8 per cent of national income by 2014, the other, Mr Greece, owes 189.2 per cent. But Mr Greece started in 2011 with a debt of 178.9 per cent and Australia began with 27.1 per cent.

Voila! You have a chart that makes Australia's debt growth look much worse. But, again, which debt would you prefer to have?

Government income is tied to the size and growth of the economy, usually expressed as gross domestic product. And when we convert the debt growth shown in the chart to GDP terms, the picture looks very different. The 2011-14 debt growth is as follows: Slovenia 23.9 per cent of GDP, Spain 26.4 per cent, the UK 12.6 per cent, Greece 10.3 per cent, total OECD 9.6 per cent and the United States 8.1 per cent. Australia's increase is 6.7 per cent.

By 2014, every other country on the chart has a debt-to-GDP ratio between 1.25 and 5.6 times as big as Australia's. The chart's ''best'' performers, Germany and Switzerland, are cutting debt but, relative to GDP, still owe significantly more than Australia does. Commonwealth debt is equal to about 10 months' revenue - most mortgage holders can only dream of such a burden.

The chart seems to have its origins in an article in The Australian Financial Review by economist and former Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin. He presents data for all OECD nations and also notes Australia's gross government debt is the third-smallest, after Luxembourg and Estonia, and much lower than the rest. ''The problem is not that Australia currently has a debt problem,'' he acknowledges, but ''it has a problem with the nature of spending and taxation''.

McKibbin's legitimate concern is that if current imbalances are not corrected and debt-based funding is not invested productively, we could develop a debt problem.

So the basic fact, which is well documented, is this: Australian government debt is low and is not out of control.

The picture looks even better when one realises the OECD figures are for general government debt. Other tiers of government owe about 40 per cent of our debt, so the Commonwealth's share equals 20 per cent of GDP.

But wait, there's more. The OECD figures are for gross debt. As any borrower and any lender should know, debt is assessed against

Debt under LIBs = ZERO

Debt under ALP = $300B

depose the upper middle class dictatorship, replace through working class struggle - problem solved...

We hear debt is out of control and future generations will be burdened with paying it off. Rubbish.      :)

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B

Gratifying, isn't it?

Some of us, however, remember things like the dearth of infrastructure spending - and, of course, the Global Financial Crisis. On the latter, Abbott showed that he'd have wimped out. Rudd showed that he had the guts to spend a bit to save a lot. It wasn't pretty - things done in haste tend to be like that - but it seems to have worked. Had Abbott been PM, we'd have suffered.

While I'm at it, here's the rest of that article, from http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/debt-crisis-truth-is-there-isnt-one-20130816-2s289.html:

Quote:

But wait, there's more. The OECD figures are for gross debt. As any borrower and any lender should know, debt is assessed against income and assets, so net debt is a better measure of manageability. The Commonwealth's net debt is just 11.7 per cent of GDP - or, put another way, half the government's annual income. That's a bit more than in the 1980s and a lot less than in the '90s, even after the worst global recession since the Depression of the 1930s. Only a handful of developed nations are doing better. Those using the OECD data to suggest otherwise are mathematically incompetent or just plain dishonest.

the working class must push back and struggle against the upper middle class economic crimes and attempts to socialize their debt problems onto us... 8-)

Debt under LIBs = ZERO

Debt under ALP = $300B

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B

GFC

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B GFC

So you keep saying - that was 2009

We are spending more now than we did during the GFC

Rates are lower now than they were under the GFC

Labor buggered up

And it is yet again the AGE Newspaper with its pro-ALP reporting.  Where are the Laborites condemning this bias and threatening them with legislative revenge.

But as Maqq has rightly said the debt is still huge.  And what is not reported (conveniently) is that Australia's RATE OF INCREASE in debt is the third largest in the world.

I remember when Spain was the envy of Europe too  ;D , all it takes is a few left wing idiots and thats the end of it  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

# wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:21pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B GFC So you keep saying - that was 2009 We are spending more now than we did during the GFC Rates are lower now than they were under the GFC Labor buggered up

Quote:

The Commonwealth's net debt is just 11.7 per cent of GDP - or, put another way, half the government's annual income. That's a bit more than in the 1980s and a lot less than in the '90s, even after the worst global recession since the Depression of the 1930s. Only a handful of developed nations are doing better. Those using the OECD data to suggest otherwise are mathematically incompetent or just plain dishonest.

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:28pm: # wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:21pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B GFC So you keep saying - that was 2009 We are spending more now than we did during the GFC Rates are lower now than they were under the GFC Labor buggered up Quote: The Commonwealth's net debt is just 11.7 per cent of GDP - or, put another way, half the government's annual income. That's a bit more than in the 1980s and a lot less than in the '90s, even after the worst global recession since the Depression of the 1930s. Only a handful of developed nations are doing better. Those using the OECD data to suggest otherwise are mathematically incompetent or just plain dishonest.

the dishonesty is in thinking that because we are better than everyone else that it is still good.  That is the stupidity of relativistic thinking.  I did not that you failed to answer the report that australias INCREASE in debt is the third fastest in the world.

The only way to deal with the debt of the rich is to seize their private property and make them work it off...

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

... But as Maqq has rightly said the debt is still huge. ...

Quote:

The Commonwealth's net debt is just 11.7 per cent of GDP - or, put another way, half the government's annual income. That's a bit more than in the 1980s and a lot less than in the '90s, even after the worst global recession since the Depression of the 1930s. Only a handful of developed nations are doing better. Those using the OECD data to suggest otherwise are mathematically incompetent or just plain dishonest.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

...  And what is not reported (conveniently) is that Australia's RATE OF INCREASE in debt is the third largest in the world.

Quote:

The first question to ask about any percentage change is this: what was the starting point? The chart purporting to show the ''facts'' on debt is a classic example of why this matters. Every other country on the chart has a debt that, relative to the size of their economies, is much bigger than Australia's. The apparently rapid growth in Australian debt is a result of its low starting point. As a simple illustration, which would you prefer: a 100 per cent increase in a $1 debt, or a 10 per cent increase in a $100 debt? The first will cost you $1, the second $10. No contest. Or consider two debtors. The figures are drawn from the OECD Outlook No. 93, published in June. One, let's call her Ms Australia, has gross debts equal to 33.8 per cent of national income by 2014, the other, Mr Greece, owes 189.2 per cent. But Mr Greece started in 2011 with a debt of 178.9 per cent and Australia began with 27.1 per cent. Voila! You have a chart that makes Australia's debt growth look much worse. But, again, which debt would you prefer to have?

Is Debt Out Of Control In Australia?

Simple question? Actually NO!

The reality of THE CURRENT SITUATION is that NO DEBT IS NOT OUT OF CONTROL!

However, given the basic Local & Global Economic Drivers, IT QUITE POSSIBLY COULD BE, GOING FORWARD!

That said, the fact is that in the Real world, Economics has a time & a place for both Deficits & Surpluses.

Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world and it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus", BUT "nor can you always run at a Deficit".

Pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally, is misleading. The Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007, disregards the fact that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND it disregards history which says that both Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

McKibbin's legitimate concern is that if current imbalances are not corrected and debt-based funding is not invested productively, we could develop a debt problem.



this is one of my biggest problems.. crook...


JUST WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO SHOW FOR THIS DEBT......


that doesnt seem to be a problem by your figuring...

now another $500mil for the car industry that is all but dead.....

just for votes???..

even the govts of this country dont buy these cars..... dikd Mr Rudd tell you where this money is coming from??????? not borrowed surely??

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

Is Debt Out Of Control In Australia? Simple question? Actually NO! The reality of THE CURRENT SITUATION is that NO DEBT IS NOT OUT OF CONTROL! However, given the basic Local & Global Economic Drivers, IT QUITE POSSIBLY COULD BE, GOING FORWARD! That said, the fact is that in the Real world, Economics has a time & a place for both Deficits & Surpluses. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world and it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus", BUT "nor can you always run at a Deficit". Pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally, is misleading. The Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007, disregards the fact that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND it disregards history which says that both Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

and if we did hit a massive BUMP with our economy... what then???..

will those we owe say .. thats OK Australia you dont have to pay us back?????????..

no we will still have to find it wont we...

and again I ask you WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO SHOW FOR THIS MASSIVE DEBT...that we dont have concern ourselves about?????

The road to an unsustainable debt is signposted all the way with warning signs one like $300Bil for instance.

You cant get to a motherbiter huge debt unless you start with smaller debts.

Labor are the experts of unsustainable spending, then the Libs have to drag the economy back into shape.
This is why history is a subject that we should all study.
Time and time again Labor have done it

cods wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:21pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:15pm: Is Debt Out Of Control In Australia? Simple question? Actually NO! The reality of THE CURRENT SITUATION is that NO DEBT IS NOT OUT OF CONTROL! However, given the basic Local & Global Economic Drivers, IT QUITE POSSIBLY COULD BE, GOING FORWARD! That said, the fact is that in the Real world, Economics has a time & a place for both Deficits & Surpluses. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world and it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus", BUT "nor can you always run at a Deficit". Pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally, is misleading. The Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007, disregards the fact that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND it disregards history which says that both Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt and if we did hit a massive BUMP with our economy... what then???.. will those we owe say .. thats OK Australia you dont have to pay us back?????????.. no we will still have to find it wont we... and again I ask you WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO SHOW FOR THIS MASSIVE DEBT...that we dont have concern ourselves about?????

Cods,
Let me make a statement & pose a question, so YOU can think about an answer to your own question.

We, both Australia & Globally, have just had a substantial "BUMP", as you put it, to the Global Economy, which has been working its way down from the weaker Economies (including Europe & the USA), who were the first to be hit, to the stronger Economies, such as China, OZ & a few others.

My question is, WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAVE BEEN THE EFFECTS ON AUSTRALIA, IF STIMULUS MEASURES HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN (admittedly, some could have been implemented better, with time & hindsight) & OUR ECONOMY HAD BEEN LEFT TO MEANDER ON ITS OWN OR WORSE STILL, IF A GOVERNMENT HAD IMPLEMENTED AUSTERITY MEASURES?


And, to avoid the likelihood of some obvious comments, from some, I have already indicated that Debt can not simply be allowed to escalate, out of control.

I have also indicated that specific measures will be required to increase Productivity, that the Tax, Expenditure & the whole of government systems, will need a complete review, with some tax increases (including business) & some "entitlements" will have to  be reduced &/or done away with completely!

Oh & btw, that BUMP in the Economy, commonly referred to as the GFC, is far from finished, it has a long way to run yet & it will become a much deeper Local & Global slump, before it is finally ready to finish!

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:52pm: ... But as Maqq has rightly said the debt is still huge. ... Quote: The Commonwealth's net debt is just 11.7 per cent of GDP - or, put another way, half the government's annual income. That's a bit more than in the 1980s and a lot less than in the '90s, even after the worst global recession since the Depression of the 1930s. Only a handful of developed nations are doing better. Those using the OECD data to suggest otherwise are mathematically incompetent or just plain dishonest. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:52pm: ...  And what is not reported (conveniently) is that Australia's RATE OF INCREASE in debt is the third largest in the world. [quote]The first question to ask about any percentage change is this: what was the starting point? The chart purporting to show the ''facts'' on debt is a classic example of why this matters. Every other country on the chart has a debt that, relative to the size of their economies, is much bigger than Australia's. The apparently rapid growth in Australian debt is a result of its low starting point. As a simple illustration, which would you prefer: a 100 per cent increase in a $1 debt, or a 10 per cent increase in a $100 debt? The first will cost you $1, the second $10. No contest. Or consider two debtors. The figures are drawn from the OECD Outlook No. 93, published in June. One, let's call her Ms Australia, has gross debts equal to 33.8 per cent of national income by 2014, the other, Mr Greece, owes 189.2 per cent. But Mr Greece started in 2011 with a debt of 178.9 per cent and Australia began with 27.1 per cent. Voila! You have a chart that makes Australia's debt growth look much worse. But, again, which debt would you prefer to have?

[/quote]


where the hell did you learn maths???  what a nonsense argument.  You treat debt as a DESIRED thing and feel that catching up to the rest of the world is a good thing.    of course you could have used NET debt instead of the more convenient(for your argument that is) gross debt.

sloppy argument.

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

Is Debt Out Of Control In Australia? Simple question? Actually NO! The reality of THE CURRENT SITUATION is that NO DEBT IS NOT OUT OF CONTROL! However, given the basic Local & Global Economic Drivers, IT QUITE POSSIBLY COULD BE, GOING FORWARD! That said, the fact is that in the Real world, Economics has a time & a place for both Deficits & Surpluses. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world and it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus", BUT "nor can you always run at a Deficit". Pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally, is misleading. The Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007, disregards the fact that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND it disregards history which says that both Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

so true to your usual from your answer is 'yes and No'

idiot.

You need to understand idiotic lefty logic here, the idiot lefty looks at his neighbour who owns his own house and has no debt and thinks what a fool, why don't you borrow money on your credit card and spend it all on useless sh#t that you don't need.  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:15pm: Is Debt Out Of Control In Australia? Simple question? Actually NO! The reality of THE CURRENT SITUATION is that NO DEBT IS NOT OUT OF CONTROL! However, given the basic Local & Global Economic Drivers, IT QUITE POSSIBLY COULD BE, GOING FORWARD! That said, the fact is that in the Real world, Economics has a time & a place for both Deficits & Surpluses. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world and it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus", BUT "nor can you always run at a Deficit". Pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally, is misleading. The Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007, disregards the fact that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND it disregards history which says that both Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt so true to your usual from your answer is 'yes and No' idiot.

The "truth" Longy?
You & your SPIN wouldn't know the truth, IF IT BIT YOU ON YOUR ASS!
I don't deal in spin, I deal only in Reality & Reality is not reside in your "head space"!


Try answering one straight forward question -
MUST &/or CAN, every year be a SURPLUS YEAR?

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

You need to understand idiotic lefty logic here, the idiot lefty looks at his neighbour who owns his own house and has no debt and thinks what a fool, why don't you borrow money on your credit card and spend it all on useless sh#t that you don't need.  ;D

FYI -
I own my house, I have no ongoing Debt!

I use credit cards, BUT pay them in full each month!
I am not a Lefty, NOR am I a Righty, I am simply someone with over 40 years experience in the Finance Sector, who is a REALIST!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 7:59pm:

# wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 4:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:52pm: ... But as Maqq has rightly said the debt is still huge. ... Quote: The Commonwealth's net debt is just 11.7 per cent of GDP - or, put another way, half the government's annual income. That's a bit more than in the 1980s and a lot less than in the '90s, even after the worst global recession since the Depression of the 1930s. Only a handful of developed nations are doing better. Those using the OECD data to suggest otherwise are mathematically incompetent or just plain dishonest. longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:52pm: ...  And what is not reported (conveniently) is that Australia's RATE OF INCREASE in debt is the third largest in the world. [quote]The first question to ask about any percentage change is this: what was the starting point? The chart purporting to show the ''facts'' on debt is a classic example of why this matters. Every other country on the chart has a debt that, relative to the size of their economies, is much bigger than Australia's. The apparently rapid growth in Australian debt is a result of its low starting point. As a simple illustration, which would you prefer: a 100 per cent increase in a $1 debt, or a 10 per cent increase in a $100 debt? The first will cost you $1, the second $10. No contest. Or consider two debtors. The figures are drawn from the OECD Outlook No. 93, published in June. One, let's call her Ms Australia, has gross debts equal to 33.8 per cent of national income by 2014, the other, Mr Greece, owes 189.2 per cent. But Mr Greece started in 2011 with a debt of 178.9 per cent and Australia began with 27.1 per cent. Voila! You have a chart that makes Australia's debt growth look much worse. But, again, which debt would you prefer to have?

where the hell did you learn maths???  what a nonsense argument.  You treat debt as a DESIRED thing and feel that catching up to the rest of the world is a good thing.    of course you could have used NET debt instead of the more convenient(for your argument that is) gross debt.

sloppy argument.[/quote]

Are you saying that an 11.7% net Debt is poor maths OR a nonsense argument?

If so, I would suggest YOU are the one who is full of nonsense!

In fact, that level of Debt would be the envy of the vast majority of countries around the world, as shown here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 7:59pm:

... where the hell did you learn maths???  what a nonsense argument.  You treat debt as a DESIRED thing and feel that catching up to the rest of the world is a good thing.    of course you could have used NET debt instead of the more convenient(for your argument that is) gross debt. sloppy argument.

Actually, I was quoting the article. You really should read the opening post. You've made a fool of yourself.

Again.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B

Maqqa, Maqqa, Maqqa,
What you fail to say, in your SPIN, is that most governments, both here & overseas, including most past Australian Liberal governments regularly run up Deficits & Debts, as part of the standard government modus operandi.

The Howard Liberal government being one of the exceptions, albeit that they ran up Surpluses during the greatest Global Economic BOOM in modern history and whilst they did so, they should have done better, given those boom years!
But, to give credit where due, as I have done previously, the Lib performance during those Peak Baby Boomer years, was better than 99% of what most overseas Politicians achieved!

In addition, the current Labor crowd also took office as the worst Global GFC in at least 80 years was commencing and as such AUS-terity had to stop & Stimulus measures had to start, otherwise the outcomes between 2007-2013 would have been substantial worse!
That is not to say that Labor did a great job, as they certainly made some errors!

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 9:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 7:59pm: ... where the hell did you learn maths???  what a nonsense argument.  You treat debt as a DESIRED thing and feel that catching up to the rest of the world is a good thing.    of course you could have used NET debt instead of the more convenient(for your argument that is) gross debt. sloppy argument. Actually, I was quoting the article. You really should read the opening post. You've made a fool of yourself. Again.

Longy making a fool of himself, nothing unusual there!

Un-sustainability of a Government debt (Gross) level above 60-90% of a country’s GDP, is a level generally accepted by Economists.

Personally, I would have a great preference to keep the Gross Debt to GDP ratio UNDER 45%, as it can get very difficult to actually repay government Debt, except for exceptional circumstances, such as the Peak years of the Baby Boomer Boom!

The level of tolerable Government debt depends on a multitude of factors, such as -
1) The borrowing currency is also a major reserve currency! If it is, then it may be seen to reduce risk levels & increase the possibility of "Printing" more money, to assist in servicing the Debt issue? Some related issues are currently percolating in the USA.

2) Who will own the government Debt, Locals or Foreign sources? The larger the Foreign component, the more difficulties may be experienced?

3) The Likely level of interest rates that will be payable on the Government Debt, over the short, medium & longer term? Higher rates (particularly short to medium term) make higher Debt MORE difficult  to service, whereas Lower rates make Debt LESS difficult to service?

4) But, expected economic growth, is the most important factor!
Higher levels of expected growth, will increase the likelihood of higher Tax Revenues, thus possibly increasing the attractiveness of investing in that Government Debt & possibly lowering the rates payable?   
Lower levels of expected growth, will increase the likelihood of lower Tax Revenues, thus possibly decreasing the attractiveness of investing in that Government Debt & possibly increasing the rates payable? 

Of course, these are government & Market REACTIONS TO THE REAL ECONOMY and that real Economy is now being driven by 3 major factors, each of which has or is, in the process of change course, compared to their positions, over the last 50-60 years in particular & those factors are -
1) Demographic Changes - Over the last 70 years or so, we have seen the largest Population explosion in human history, which is now Peaking, before going into actual reverse over the next 20-30 years.
The major effect here is that the rate of increase in DEMAND for all forms of Goods & Services skyrocketed between WW2, until the early part of this new century, BUT since then DEMAND has started to wane & the rate of increase in DEMAND has commenced to slow.
Over the next 20-30 years, DEMAND for all forms of Goods & Services will first level off & then commence to Decline and no amount of stimulus will change that basic fact!
2) Energy (Supply & Pricing) - This is one of 3 great enablers to the Demographic surge between 1945-2005 and the massive discoveries of Fossil Fuels (such as Oil, Coal & Gas), at very low Prices, assisted the massive Population growth over that period.
However, the rate of growth in Supply started to taper off in the late 1990's, became more evident in the first decade of the new century and the resultant lack of Supply/increasing Demand showed up in massive Price hikes, with Oil going from $10 a barrel in 1999, to around $148 a barrel in 2008.
The major effect here, is that Fossil Fuels & Oil in particular are involved in almost every Product & Service known to humanity AND the increasing Prices of Fossil Fuels are driving Price hikes across the board, with the Publics Disposable income taking a substantial hit, over the last decade or so AND THAT WILL CONTINUE, AS THERE IS NO VIABLE ENERGY ALTERNATIVE THAT CAN DELIVER BOTH SUFFICIENT VOLUME & THE RIGHT PRICE!
Of course, the consumer hit to their hip pocket, MUST & IS, BEING REFLECTED BY A DECLINE IN DEMAND!

By the way, the other 2 great enablers are -
Climate - We have had a goldilocks climate for several hundred years, which has greatly assisted in accommodating the additional Population, primarily by way of providing sufficient Food & Fresh Water.
Technology - Human Technology has exploded, particularly over the last 100-200 years and that has provided an enormous boost in Productivity, again assisting the Population explosion in a myriad of ways.
That said, the goldilocks climate is now in the process of ending, whether it be natural or human assisted is still being argued out, although I would agree there is a degree of human cause involved.
Which leaves us with Technology and as I have said previously, Technology may again ride over the hill to our combined rescue, BUT AGAIN I WOULD COUNCIL AGAINST RELYING ON LAST MINUTE, OUT OF THE BLUE CAVALRY CHARGE BY THE TECHNOLOGY BRIGADE, AS IT IS SIMPLY NOT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY!

No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW!

We will need -
A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies.
Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity.
Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians.
AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally.

Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES!
Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible!

In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes.

Capitalists exploit child labor for profit...no Communist society would ever allow children to be used like that... :P

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B

How many public facilities (health education etc) under ALP and LIB?

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

And it is yet again the AGE Newspaper with its pro-ALP reporting.  Where are the Laborites condemning this bias and threatening them with legislative revenge. But as Maqq has rightly said the debt is still huge.  And what is not reported (conveniently) is that Australia's RATE OF INCREASE in debt is the third largest in the world.

The AGE is not pro alp. Its slightly less malicious towards the alp than the murdoch rags so you in your extremeness think its pro alp.

SOB

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

You need to understand idiotic lefty logic here, the idiot lefty looks at his neighbour who owns his own house and has no debt and thinks what a fool, why don't you borrow money on your credit card and spend it all on useless sh#t that you don't need.  ;D

So nothing to say on the topic here?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 6:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 2:56pm: Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B How many public facilities (health education etc) under ALP and LIB? SOB

I trust you are not thinking about BER...shades cloth and unwanted libraries....or pinkbatts....or green loans...or fuel watch....I think we are still paying for all them...

I bet your thinking gonski.ndis.lol... both of which are supported by the STates...and wouldnt get off the ground if they hadnt been...neither of which do we know where the Fed money is coming from....surely not the mining tax????? ::)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 6:44am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:52pm: And it is yet again the AGE Newspaper with its pro-ALP reporting.  Where are the Laborites condemning this bias and threatening them with legislative revenge. But as Maqq has rightly said the debt is still huge.  And what is not reported (conveniently) is that Australia's RATE OF INCREASE in debt is the third largest in the world. The AGE is not pro alp. Its slightly less malicious towards the alp than the murdoch rags so you in your extremeness think its pro alp. SOB

well it sure as heck doesnt sound like you read it..

you must have forgotten gillards pure hatred of the media so much so she got two journos the sack...but kept Fairfax on side and gave them all the headlines ahead of News Ltd...lol..

in fact it was only the nice journos from the parliamentary press that got invited to her hastily organised door stops.... ::) ::)


just because you dont like whats printed doesnt mean its all lies.

Is Debt Out Of Control In Australia?

#####

Yes!

Both govt and personal debt are out of control.

cods

Yes Gillard had a very odd way of getting people offside in the media, you could see her fury when she was asked a question she did not like or was not on some list ......... she has this odd theory that you can robotically control the media which is odd for a left wing twit bags who believe in freedom of the press, its the usual left wing hypocrisy on display.

She was the least engaging MP I have ever seen, when she tals to people she spits and hisses at them like a viper.

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW! We will need - A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies. Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity. Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians. AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally. Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES! Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible! In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes.

So, NO DISAGREEMENT from the usual suspects, I take it therefore that they agree with the above & the rest of what I said in my post!

Capitalism is based on mindless production and consumption...it is chaotic, unscientific and unplanned...what more can you expect from it but failure... 8-)

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B

Yes, however, you're avoiding the focus of this thread:

"Is Debt Out Of Control In Australia?"  Simple answer: No.

Is it more now than under the Libs?  Yes. Absolutely.  Nobody is going to argue with you over that Maqqa.

However, is it out of control?  No.

Before you enter a thread, you really should pay more attention to what it's actually about.

Cheers.

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Julie Bishop says national government debt has "gone from zero to heading towards $400 billion".

( ... Julie Bishop on Thursday, May 23, 2013 in ABC radio interview)



  http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Frulings%2FTruth_o_meter-01.jpg  http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Frulings%2FTruth_o_meter-01.jpg  http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Frulings%2FTruth_o_meter-01.jpg  http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Frulings%2FTruth_o_meter-01.jpg  http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Frulings%2FTruth_o_meter-01.jpg


http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/24/julie-bishop/julie-bishop-says-national-debt-has-gone-zero-head/

Facts (provided by the Australian Treasury)

1. Gross debt in Australia has increased by 350% in the 6 years of ALP Government.
2. The projected surplus of A$1.5bn for 2013 blew out to be A30.1bn deficit.
3. The performance of the Government in its second term to its forecasts amounted to misses of A$109bn.
4. Business confidence in Australia had hit a low of 8 months following the write downs of its projected forecasts in Aug 2013.

5. The gross debt of Australia in 2007 delivered by the outgoing Howard Government was $58,284,000,000.
The debt at June 2013 is A$264,976,000,000.
An increase of A$206.7bn.....


Facts.

The only Surplus you  ever see from a Labor Government is a surplus of policies..Rudd running around the Country making them..whilst his Central Office says..What the f....k?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

Facts (provided by the Australian Treasury) 1. Gross debt in Australia has increased by 350% in the 6 years of ALP Government. 2. The projected surplus of A$1.5bn for 2013 blew out to be A30.1bn deficit. 3. The performance of the Government in its second term to its forecasts amounted to misses of A$109bn. 4. Business confidence in Australia had hit a low of 8 months following the write downs of its projected forecasts in Aug 2013. 5. The gross debt of Australia in 2007 delivered by the outgoing Howard Government was $58,284,000,000. The debt at June 2013 is A$264,976,000,000. An increase of A$206.7bn..... Facts.

Facts are andrei

Lefties will continue to justify the $300B debt - the reason is they can't bring themselves to admit Labor wasted alot of money

So they will take the $300B and compare it against worse scenarios to make themselves feel good

In one breathe they accused Howard of massive waste - yet the last revenue figure in 2007 was $274B and we were running surpluses

Revenue under Labor is now $356B and they've run 6 deficits yet there's little to show for it

PN is trying to allocate any bad qualities across "all governments" but if there's something good - then it's the Labor Party!!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

Facts (provided by the Australian Treasury) 1. Gross debt in Australia has increased by 350% in the 6 years of ALP Government. 2. The projected surplus of A$1.5bn for 2013 blew out to be A30.1bn deficit. 3. The performance of the Government in its second term to its forecasts amounted to misses of A$109bn. 4. Business confidence in Australia had hit a low of 8 months following the write downs of its projected forecasts in Aug 2013. 5. The gross debt of Australia in 2007 delivered by the outgoing Howard Government was $58,284,000,000. The debt at June 2013 is A$264,976,000,000. An increase of A$206.7bn..... Facts.

Yep, ok they are fair statements, BUT the real underlying issue is -
Q) Why did the government take those actions & putting aside the fact that some errors were certainly made, in terms of implementation, were the basics of the actions correct in implementing a stimulus approach?
A) That a reasonable sized stimulation was the correct action, particularly given the size of the GFC and the GFC was the basic reason for the action, as the costs to the OZ Economy would have reflected great damage, IF action was not taken! 
That is not to say that there is an open & endless opportunity for ongoing Stimuli, nor is there an excuse to continue driving the Debt to GDP ratio higher, particularly as it won't now have the same or similar desirable outcomes.   

Oh & btw, Business confidence will continue to fall, whether the Liberals or Labor win this election, although I think the Libs are likely narrow winners, as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow over the period ahead!

Part of my reasoning for that statement is at -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/29#29

Maqqa wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 3:57pm: Facts (provided by the Australian Treasury) 1. Gross debt in Australia has increased by 350% in the 6 years of ALP Government. 2. The projected surplus of A$1.5bn for 2013 blew out to be A30.1bn deficit. 3. The performance of the Government in its second term to its forecasts amounted to misses of A$109bn. 4. Business confidence in Australia had hit a low of 8 months following the write downs of its projected forecasts in Aug 2013. 5. The gross debt of Australia in 2007 delivered by the outgoing Howard Government was $58,284,000,000. The debt at June 2013 is A$264,976,000,000. An increase of A$206.7bn..... Facts. Facts are andrei Lefties will continue to justify the $300B debt - the reason is they can't bring themselves to admit Labor wasted alot of money So they will take the $300B and compare it against worse scenarios to make themselves feel good In one breathe they accused Howard of massive waste - yet the last revenue figure in 2007 was $274B and we were running surpluses Revenue under Labor is now $356B and they've run 6 deficits yet there's little to show for it PN is trying to allocate any bad qualities across "all governments" but if there's something good - then it's the Labor Party!!!

Facts are Maqqa, as per my posts -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/45#45
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/29#29

The answer is yes


Debt is out of control & the truth is
that Abbott won't be able to do much about it.

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 10:59pm: No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW! We will need - A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies. Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity. Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians. AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally. Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES! Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible! In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes. So, NO DISAGREEMENT from the usual suspects, I take it therefore that they agree with the above & the rest of what I said in my post!

so pinhead... when WE say there needs to be a reduction in expenditure and an increase in some taxes we are morons but when YOU say it, it is okay? 

This is why you are routinely ignored: because when you can finally get a pseudo solution out of you it is the same as what we are saying but without the convoluted reasoning.

So Bobby should we up the ante and let Abbott raise our national debt  to 500 billion over the next 3 years...I don't think so.

And you know what, I don't think the Australian public will buy the economic  bush.t he has been wheeling out in the last couple of weeks either.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 10:59pm: No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW! We will need - A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies. Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity. Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians. AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally. Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES! Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible! In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes. So, NO DISAGREEMENT from the usual suspects, I take it therefore that they agree with the above & the rest of what I said in my post! so pinhead... when WE say there needs to be a reduction in expenditure and an increase in some taxes we are morons but when YOU say it, it is okay?  This is why you are routinely ignored: because when you can finally get a pseudo solution out of you it is the same as what we are saying but without the convoluted reasoning.

A few observations Longy -
1) The Liberal DNA, particularly recently, is that Expenditure reductions simply become "across the board AUS-terity programs", instead of specific & targeted expenditure cuts.
2) Even YOU, could claim that the Election promise of reducing Corporate tax levels is an increase, IT'S A DECREASE IN TAX, NOT AN INCREASE, you moron!   


Mind , you're not on your lonesome, with Labor promising -
$Billions for a car industry, which will eventually disappear up its own ass!
Tax cuts for Northern Australia, which will achieve absolutely nothing, due to changing circumstances!

As I have said many times, I am not offering "solutions", which will restore the status quo.
Far from it, all I am doing is highlighting what is actually happening, so some people can be forearmed with that knowledge & perhaps get better outcomes, because of that knowledge!
You are the moron, who thinks nothing has, nor will it change?
But you're not on your lonesome, as both Labor & Liberals are also living in the past and all of you assume the status quo will return, WHICH SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN!

But, congratulations are in order, as it seems your 4R's failed again, with your zero comprehension of what I wrote at -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/29#29

&

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/45#45

&  More, much more!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:01pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 10:59pm: No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW! We will need - A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies. Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity. Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians. AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally. Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES! Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible! In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes. So, NO DISAGREEMENT from the usual suspects, I take it therefore that they agree with the above & the rest of what I said in my post! so pinhead... when WE say there needs to be a reduction in expenditure and an increase in some taxes we are morons but when YOU say it, it is okay?  This is why you are routinely ignored: because when you can finally get a pseudo solution out of you it is the same as what we are saying but without the convoluted reasoning. A few observations Longy - 1) The Liberal DNA, particularly recently, is that Expenditure reductions simply become "across the board AUS-terity programs", instead of specific & targeted expenditure cuts. 2) Even YOU, could claim that the Election promise of reducing Corporate tax levels is an increase, IT'S A DECREASE IN TAX, NOT AN INCREASE, you moron!    Mind , you're not on your lonesome, with Labor promising - $Billions for a car industry, which will eventually disappear up its own ass! Tax cuts for Northern Australia, which will achieve absolutely nothing, due to changing circumstances! As I have said many times, I am not offering "solutions", which will restore the status quo. Far from it, all I am doing is highlighting what is actually happening, so some people can be forearmed with that knowledge & perhaps get better outcomes, because of that knowledge! You are the moron, who thinks nothing has, nor will it change? But you're not on your lonesome, as both Labor & Liberals are also living in the past and all of you assume the status quo will return, WHICH SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN! But, congratulations are in order, as it seems your 4R's failed again, with your zero comprehension of what I wrote at - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/29#29 & http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/45#45 &  More, much more!

You support stimulus but only in the manner you like which is GIVING MONEY AWAY.  the stimulus that is cutting taxes is not okay?  if so why, since the outcome is superior?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:01pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 10:59pm: No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW! We will need - A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies. Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity. Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians. AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally. Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES! Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible! In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes. So, NO DISAGREEMENT from the usual suspects, I take it therefore that they agree with the above & the rest of what I said in my post! so pinhead... when WE say there needs to be a reduction in expenditure and an increase in some taxes we are morons but when YOU say it, it is okay?  This is why you are routinely ignored: because when you can finally get a pseudo solution out of you it is the same as what we are saying but without the convoluted reasoning. A few observations Longy - 1) The Liberal DNA, particularly recently, is that Expenditure reductions simply become "across the board AUS-terity programs", instead of specific & targeted expenditure cuts. 2) Even YOU, could claim that the Election promise of reducing Corporate tax levels is an increase, IT'S A DECREASE IN TAX, NOT AN INCREASE, you moron!    Mind , you're not on your lonesome, with Labor promising - $Billions for a car industry, which will eventually disappear up its own ass! Tax cuts for Northern Australia, which will achieve absolutely nothing, due to changing circumstances! As I have said many times, I am not offering "solutions", which will restore the status quo. Far from it, all I am doing is highlighting what is actually happening, so some people can be forearmed with that knowledge & perhaps get better outcomes, because of that knowledge! You are the moron, who thinks nothing has, nor will it change? But you're not on your lonesome, as both Labor & Liberals are also living in the past and all of you assume the status quo will return, WHICH SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN! But, congratulations are in order, as it seems your 4R's failed again, with your zero comprehension of what I wrote at - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/29#29 & http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/45#45 &  More, much more! You support stimulus but only in the manner you like which is GIVING MONEY AWAY.  the stimulus that is cutting taxes is not okay?  if so why, since the outcome is superior?

Didn't you just say, in your previous post, that the Libs were  INCREASING TAX?

Because of time lines! It's like trying to say you can re-invent Surpluses, which were possible at the Peak of the Baby Boomer Boom, but no longer possible now, as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow down!
Similarly, what was "somewhat" effective at the height of the GFC is no longer likely to be effective (under any government), as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow down, for all the reasons I have written about!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 6:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 6:00pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:01pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 10:59pm: No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW! We will need - A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies. Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity. Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians. AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally. Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES! Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible! In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes. So, NO DISAGREEMENT from the usual suspects, I take it therefore that they agree with the above & the rest of what I said in my post! so pinhead... when WE say there needs to be a reduction in expenditure and an increase in some taxes we are morons but when YOU say it, it is okay?  This is why you are routinely ignored: because when you can finally get a pseudo solution out of you it is the same as what we are saying but without the convoluted reasoning. A few observations Longy - 1) The Liberal DNA, particularly recently, is that Expenditure reductions simply become "across the board AUS-terity programs", instead of specific & targeted expenditure cuts. 2) Even YOU, could claim that the Election promise of reducing Corporate tax levels is an increase, IT'S A DECREASE IN TAX, NOT AN INCREASE, you moron!    Mind , you're not on your lonesome, with Labor promising - $Billions for a car industry, which will eventually disappear up its own ass! Tax cuts for Northern Australia, which will achieve absolutely nothing, due to changing circumstances! As I have said many times, I am not offering "solutions", which will restore the status quo. Far from it, all I am doing is highlighting what is actually happening, so some people can be forearmed with that knowledge & perhaps get better outcomes, because of that knowledge! You are the moron, who thinks nothing has, nor will it change? But you're not on your lonesome, as both Labor & Liberals are also living in the past and all of you assume the status quo will return, WHICH SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN! But, congratulations are in order, as it seems your 4R's failed again, with your zero comprehension of what I wrote at - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/29#29 & http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/45#45 &  More, much more! You support stimulus but only in the manner you like which is GIVING MONEY AWAY.  the stimulus that is cutting taxes is not okay?  if so why, since the outcome is superior? Didn't you just say, in your previous post, that the Libs were  INCREASING TAX? Because of time lines! It's like trying to say you can re-invent Surpluses, which were possible at the Peak of the Baby Boomer Boom, but no longer possible now, as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow down! Similarly, what was "somewhat" effective at the height of the GFC is no longer likely to be effective (under any government), as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow down, for all the reasons I have written about!

I know you think you are really clever and come up with really insightful insights but to be honest, much of what you write is either opaque or nonsense.  When asked a question you invariably respond with a lecture on a topic that may or may not be loosely connected with the  question.

Stimulus is NOT just giving more money away but also by taxing LESS in areas that need it.  You of course disagree because you pretty much disagree with everybody on everything.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 6:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 6:00pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:01pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 10:59pm: No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW! We will need - A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies. Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity. Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians. AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally. Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES! Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible! In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes. So, NO DISAGREEMENT from the usual suspects, I take it therefore that they agree with the above & the rest of what I said in my post! so pinhead... when WE say there needs to be a reduction in expenditure and an increase in some taxes we are morons but when YOU say it, it is okay?  This is why you are routinely ignored: because when you can finally get a pseudo solution out of you it is the same as what we are saying but without the convoluted reasoning. A few observations Longy - 1) The Liberal DNA, particularly recently, is that Expenditure reductions simply become "across the board AUS-terity programs", instead of specific & targeted expenditure cuts. 2) Even YOU, could claim that the Election promise of reducing Corporate tax levels is an increase, IT'S A DECREASE IN TAX, NOT AN INCREASE, you moron!    Mind , you're not on your lonesome, with Labor promising - $Billions for a car industry, which will eventually disappear up its own ass! Tax cuts for Northern Australia, which will achieve absolutely nothing, due to changing circumstances! As I have said many times, I am not offering "solutions", which will restore the status quo. Far from it, all I am doing is highlighting what is actually happening, so some people can be forearmed with that knowledge & perhaps get better outcomes, because of that knowledge! You are the moron, who thinks nothing has, nor will it change? But you're not on your lonesome, as both Labor & Liberals are also living in the past and all of you assume the status quo will return, WHICH SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN! But, congratulations are in order, as it seems your 4R's failed again, with your zero comprehension of what I wrote at - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/29#29 & http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/45#45 &  More, much more! You support stimulus but only in the manner you like which is GIVING MONEY AWAY.  the stimulus that is cutting taxes is not okay?  if so why, since the outcome is superior? Didn't you just say, in your previous post, that the Libs were  INCREASING TAX? Because of time lines! It's like trying to say you can re-invent Surpluses, which were possible at the Peak of the Baby Boomer Boom, but no longer possible now, as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow down! Similarly, what was "somewhat" effective at the height of the GFC is no longer likely to be effective (under any government), as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow down, for all the reasons I have written about! I know you think you are really clever and come up with really insightful insights but to be honest, much of what you write is either opaque or nonsense.  When asked a question you invariably respond with a lecture on a topic that may or may not be loosely connected with the  question. Stimulus is NOT just giving more money away but also by taxing LESS in areas that need it.  You of course disagree because you pretty much disagree with everybody on everything.

Yes, I am aware of that!

As usual Longy, your 4R's failed, AGAIN! I am saying & I have said frequently, that both Stimulus & Austerity programs have been a staple part of modern Economics & both have been used in the past, at various times, as required by where the Economic cycle was situated AND BOTH STIMULUS & AUSTERITY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY USED, on many ocassions!

That said, I AM NOW SAYING THAT NEITHER WILL WORK NOW, BECAUSE THE BASIC ECONOMIC DRIVERS HAVE CHANGED TO NEUTRAL, IN TRANSITION TO NEGATIVE AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE POLITICIANS/CENTRAL BANKERS CAN DO NOW, WHICH WILL RETURN US TO THE STATUS QUO!

Which is why I have said, we will all have to share the pain, for quite some time & make a lot of changes!

What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder?

red baron wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

So Bobby should we up the ante and let Abbott raise our national debt  to 500 billion over the next 3 years...I don't think so. And you know what, I don't think the Australian public will buy the economic  bush.t he has been wheeling out in the last couple of weeks either.

Yes Baron,
Abbott will be better at managing money than Rudd although I fully expect
quite a recession under an Abbott Govt.

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:18pm:

What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder?

Well were do you like start perceptions.

debt ? economic growth ? unemployment ? take your pick

[quote]
perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 6:15pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 6:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 6:00pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 5:01pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 2:09pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 10:59pm: No, IF we want a future for ourselves, our children & our children's children, then we will have to start making some really tough decisions & we will have to start NOW! We will need - A complete review of Government Taxes, Expenditure and all government Policies. Specific Tax increases & lower Expenditure & an emphasis on Productivity. Co-operation across all Political parties, for the longer term benefit of all Australians. AND, all of the above, will also need to take place Globally. Can this & much more be done? The answer is YES! Will it be done? On that, the realist in me, is nowhere near as confident AND the flow on effects from the Demographic & Energy factors, will place Growth in particular extremely difficult and return to past Economics absolutely impossible! In any event, knowledge is everything and at least if you are armed with what is really going on, then your chances are better of getting better outcomes. So, NO DISAGREEMENT from the usual suspects, I take it therefore that they agree with the above & the rest of what I said in my post! so pinhead... when WE say there needs to be a reduction in expenditure and an increase in some taxes we are morons but when YOU say it, it is okay?  This is why you are routinely ignored: because when you can finally get a pseudo solution out of you it is the same as what we are saying but without the convoluted reasoning. A few observations Longy - 1) The Liberal DNA, particularly recently, is that Expenditure reductions simply become "across the board AUS-terity programs", instead of specific & targeted expenditure cuts. 2) Even YOU, could claim that the Election promise of reducing Corporate tax levels is an increase, IT'S A DECREASE IN TAX, NOT AN INCREASE, you moron!    Mind , you're not on your lonesome, with Labor promising - $Billions for a car industry, which will eventually disappear up its own ass! Tax cuts for Northern Australia, which will achieve absolutely nothing, due to changing circumstances! [color=#ff0000]As I have said many times, I am not offering "solutions", which will restore the status quo. But, congratulations are in order, as it seems your 4R's failed again, with your zero comprehension of what I wrote at - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/29#29 & http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376715205/45#45 &  More, much more! You support stimulus but only in the manner you like which is GIVING MONEY AWAY.  the stimulus that is cutting taxes is not okay? if so [b]why, since the outcome is superior? Didn't you just say, in your previous post, that the Libs were  INCREASING TAX? Because of time lines! It's like trying to say you can re-invent Surpluses, which were possible at the Peak of the Baby Boomer Boom, but no longer possible now, as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow down! Similarly, what was "somewhat" effective at the height of the GFC is no longer likely to be effective (under any government), as the Local & Global Economy continues to slow down, for all the reasons I have written about! I know you think you are really clever and come up with really insightful insights but to be honest, much of what you write is either opaque or nonsense.  When asked a question you invariably respond with a lecture on a topic that may or may not be loosely connected with the  question. Stimulus is NOT just giving more money away but also by taxing LESS in areas that need it. You of course disagree because you pretty much disagree with everybody on everything. Yes, I am aware of that! [b] As usual Longy, your 4R's failed, AGAIN! I am saying & I have said frequently, that both Stimulus & Austerity programs have been a staple part of modern Economics & both have been used in the past, at various times, as required by where the Economic cycle was situated AND BOTH STIMULUS & AUSTERITY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY USED, on many ocassions! That said, I AM NOW SAYING THAT NEITHER WILL WORK NOW, BECAUSE THE BASIC ECONOMIC DRIVERS HAVE CHANGED TO NEUTRAL, IN TRANSITION TO NEGATIVE AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE POLITICIANS/CENTRAL BANKERS CAN DO NOW, WHICH WILL RETURN US TO THE STATUS QUO! Which is why I have said, we will all have to share the pain, for q

Rubbish.  You are just choosing to be depressed and negative.  there is NOTHING unique about our current economic problems which are, compared to other times, rather trivial

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Rubbish.  You are just choosing to be depressed and negative.  there is NOTHING unique about our current economic problems which are, compared to other times, rather trivial

I choose REALITY!

Which simply goes to confirm you have a condition, known as NFI!

The is nothing "normal" about a once in history Peaking of both Population growth & Energy Supply Growth!

Good luck Longy, YOUR GOING TO NEED IT!

stryder wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:25pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:18pm: What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder? Well were do you like start perceptions. debt ? economic growth ? unemployment ? take your pick

Well, they can all be looked at separately, BUT they are also all connected, so take your pick, one at at time or  the combination

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

stryder wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:25pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:18pm: What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder? Well were do you like start perceptions. debt ? economic growth ? unemployment ? take your pick Well, they can all be looked at separately, BUT they are also all connected, so take your pick, one at at time or  the combination.

Don't feel "left" out Maqqa, IF you have a sensible contribution, instead of just SPIN, then join in?

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

stryder wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:25pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:18pm: What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder? Well were do you like start perceptions. debt ? economic growth ? unemployment ? take your pick Well, they can all be looked at separately, BUT they are also all connected, so take your pick, one at at time or  the combination

I dont have your varied knowledge on Economics, Im just a simpleton when it comes to it.

I dont think i can provide you with a satisfying challenge,  :)

stryder wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:47pm: stryder wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:25pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:18pm: What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder? Well were do you like start perceptions. debt ? economic growth ? unemployment ? take your pick Well, they can all be looked at separately, BUT they are also all connected, so take your pick, one at at time or  the combination I dont have your varied knowledge on Economics, Im just a simpleton when it comes to it. I dont think i can provide you with a satisfying challenge,  :)

Simpleton is more than enough to successfully challenge PN on economics

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:47pm: stryder wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:25pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:18pm: What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder? Well were do you like start perceptions. debt ? economic growth ? unemployment ? take your pick Well, they can all be looked at separately, BUT they are also all connected, so take your pick, one at at time or  the combination. Don't feel "left" out Maqqa, IF yu have a sensible contribution, instead of just SPIN, then join in?

You can't even get the concept of how a carbon tax increase prices so how can you even discuss anything else

All of this debt does not negate the working cless struggle for better wages and conditions and elimination of private ownership of the means of production comrades... http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs21/f/2007/268/b/4/Communist_Emoticon_by_delatorre_politik.gif

stryder wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:47pm: stryder wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:25pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:18pm: What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder? Well were do you like start perceptions. debt ? economic growth ? unemployment ? take your pick Well, they can all be looked at separately, BUT they are also all connected, so take your pick, one at at time or  the combination I dont have your varied knowledge on Economics, Im just a simpleton when it comes to it. I dont think i can provide you with a satisfying challenge,  :)

This is not about the challenge, we are ALL in this, up to our eyeballs, so everyone is entitled to their input and it could just produce the X factors that may be missing!

I am simply of the opinion that I have identified some unique issues, which are impacting us & need to be addressed.

Unlike a few others here, who  should remain un-named (like Longy & Maqqa), who think they "know it all", I do not & I am happy if many others enter the discussion & impart their own opinions! 

The liberals have stated there case that since government revenues are falling that we need to look at what we are spending and make some serious cuts
Labor on the other hand dont think so, they think whatever debt we are piling, we can handle it, lets keep spending like a teenager with gold credit card.

Whos right, whos wrong ???? Perceptions

I think we are just finding out how deluded by plenty the rhetoric of economics has become through all those fat years. I was always sympathetic to the men of the generations that believed that if you weren't actually making something useful, you were irrelevant baggage on society. How ugly the final days will be when all middle management that exists simply to justify their own exsistence for so long, finally have to come to terms that they are nothing more than parasites who will spend their remaining days toiling in factories and fields to pay back society for all they have grafted from it.  ;)

stryder wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 8:07pm:

The liberals have stated there case that since government revenues are falling that we need to look at what we are spending and make some serious cuts Labor on the other hand dont think so, they think whatever debt we are piling, we can handle it, lets keep spending like a teenager with gold credit card. Whos right, whos wrong ???? Perceptions

Sorry, for the delay in responding!

Things aren't quite that straight forward, BUT in the past both arguments have been correct, given the right point in the Economic cycle and IF the timing was correct then both/either would have had a fair chance of the Economy responding in the desired way!

However, for most of the duration of the modern Economic era both types of Economic theories (Austrian & Keynesian) have always had favorable Economic conditions, as far as the major drivers were concerned.

THOSE ECONOMIC DRIVERS BEING DEMOGRAPHICS, ENERGY, TECHNOLOGY & A GOLDILOCKS CLIMATE, WITH A NET RESULT BEING THAT DEMAND STEADILY INCREASED & ACTED AS A BACKDROP, WHICH WOULD EVENTUALLY GET THE ECONOMY BACK ON GROWTH, NO MATTER WHAT THE POLITICIANS, ECONOMISTS & CENTRAL BANKERS DID OR DID NOT DO! .   

So eventually, at most times during the modern Economic era, the Politicians (both Labor or Liberal) could claim they had been RIGHT and their policies had been proven successful.

IN TRUTH, ON MOST OCCASIONS, IT WAS SIMPLE THE FAVORABLE MACRO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS REASSERTING THEIR INFLUENCE, WHICH EVENTUALLY GOT GROWTH GOING AGAIN!

Now, those favorable Macro Economic conditions have leveled off and at least 3 of them are about to go into reverse.

So, what was true, is no longer true AND WE WILL NOW FIND THAT NEITHER THE LIBERAL OR THE LABOR BASIC THEORIES WILL RETURN ECONOMIC GROWTH & THEREFORE THE STATUS QUO, "TO NORMAL", AS THOSE SAME MACRO ECONOMIC DRIVERS WILL PREVENT DEMAND FROM RETURNING, NO MATTER WHAT ACTIONS ARE TAKEN.

So, at this point in time, BOTH LABOR & LIBERAL ARE WRONG!

It is very likely, that in the short to medium term, we (Locally & Globally) will find the going pretty tough, BUT IF the pain is shared fairly by all, then the Economy MAY recover, BUT it will take a considerable amount of time!

However, IF the usual suspects try to get better outcomes for themselves & their own "constituents" & there is no similar Global actions, particularly to raise Productivity, THEN ANY RECOVERY WILL BE A LOT LONGER IN COMING, IF INDEED IT DOES ARRIVE!

Not very nice reading, I know, BUT SOMETIMES REALITY JUST ISN'T PLEASANT, AS I'M SURE MANY OF THOSE WHO WENT THRU THE GREAT DEPRESSION WOULD AGREE!

Maqqa wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:52pm:

stryder wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:51pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:47pm: stryder wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:25pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 7:18pm: What are your thoughts, on the Economic Basics, Stryder? Well were do you like start perceptions. debt ? economic growth ? unemployment ? take your pick Well, they can all be looked at separately, BUT they are also all connected, so take your pick, one at at time or  the combination I dont have your varied knowledge on Economics, Im just a simpleton when it comes to it. I dont think i can provide you with a satisfying challenge,  :) Simpleton is more than enough to successfully challenge PN on economics

Then, YOU & LONGY, MUST BE LESS THAN SIMPLETON'S, BECAUSE NEITHER OF YOU HAVE EVER GOT CLOSE TO MAKING ANY ECONOMIC SENSE!

PERHAPS, BECAUSE YOU BOTH OF YOU HAVE NFI, WHEN IT COMES TO MATTERS ECONOMIC!   

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

You need to understand idiotic lefty logic here, the idiot lefty looks at his neighbour who owns his own house and has no debt and thinks what a fool, why don't you borrow money on your credit card and spend it all on useless sh#t that you don't need.  ;D

:D :D :D :D AWESOME

Poll added, self-explanatory...

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B GFC

It ended years ago. Why not blame the Great Depression too???  ::) ::) ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

# wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:21pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B GFC It ended years ago. Why not blame the Great Depression too???  ::) ::) ::)

Which goes to explain your understanding of what is going on, in Local & Global Economics or more correctly, YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.

We have not exited the GFC!

In fact, we are far from exiting the GFC, it still has a long way to run! 

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

# wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:21pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B GFC You've made the rather common mistake of comparing gross debt to net debt. The coalition never had gross debt below zero. The lowest gross debt was end of 2006 at around 50 bil. Net debt was negative as claimed. If you want to compare debts then you really should either compare net with net or gross with gross. As of today, government net debt is around 180 bil. It ended years ago. Why not blame the Great Depression too???  ::) ::) ::)

crocodile wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 9:00am: # wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:21pm: Maqqa wrote on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Debt under LIBs = ZERO Debt under ALP = $300B GFC You've made the rather common mistake of comparing gross debt to net debt. The coalition never had gross debt below zero. The lowest gross debt was end of 2006 at around 50 bil. Net debt was negative as claimed. If you want to compare debts then you really should either compare net with net or gross with gross. As of today, government net debt is around 180 bil. It ended years ago. Why not blame the Great Depression too???  ::) ::) ::)

Gross Debt is/was, as follows -
Date (30 June)      Gross Debt ($ millions)
2007      58,284
2008      60,462
2009      101,147
2010      147,133
2011      191,291
2012      233,976
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_national_debt

The Net Debt situation, from 1970-now can be found at the following site -
http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/myefo/html/13_appendix_d.htm
As can be seen, the Libs picked up a Net Debt on taking office in 1996, which Peaked at some $96 Billion, they then converted that into a Net Credit of $45 Billion on leaving office in 2007 ,just as the GFC was getting under way.
The last figures, on this article, shows Labor going back to a Net Debt of around $144 Billion at the end of June 2012.
It is also worth noting that Net Debt rose initially when Hawke/Keating won office in 1983. It then fell back to more usual levels, before rising again, which co-incided with the Economic slowdown of the early to mid 1990's.

It should also be noted that Hockey actually went urther than Maqqa, by claiming Zero Debt when the Libs left office & that Labor would leave a $400 Billion Debt on leaving office. Given the above, it would seem both Maqqa & Joe have used the Libs Net Debt on leaving office AND both have used the Gross Labor Debt, with Maqqa maybe using an estimate for the end of June 2014 & Joe perhaps using a forward estimate guestimate for 2017???